Artificial intelligence is ‘not a separate initiative but a continuation of the courts reform vision', the sector's oversight body has found. The endorsement appears in the final report of an Administrative Justice Council working group chaired by Caroline Sheppard, former traffic penalty tribunal chief adjudicator, on digitalisation and the experiences of users.
The report makes 11 recommendations to help improve access, usability, processes and the effective use of technology. On AI, it states that ‘rule-based systems or supervised machine learning can support automated case triage and categorisation’ by identifying if a case meets eligibility criteria, flag missing evidence and suggesting the most appropriate hearing pathway.
This, the report concludes, would reduce workload so resources can be allocated more efficently and cases are ‘routed promptly to the correct teams’.
AI could also help review long submissions, evidence bundles, or witness statements ‘highlighting key issues, precedents, and inconsistencies’ which, the report predicts, would ‘reduce the time judges and legal officers spend on repetitive review tasks while ensuring critical information is not overlooked’.
Read more
Using AI for backlog management and case scheduling ‘supports resource allocation and reduces delay, though its accuracy depends on the quality and completeness of historical data’.
A lack of data collection in several areas, such as remote hearings and the proportion of cases that conclude due to withdrawal, discontinuance or lapse is also noted.
‘HMCTS does not seem to systematically collect data about cases that would identify why an appeal is withdrawn or why an appellant has ceased to participate in the process,’ the report states adding that ‘the tribunal data strategy is only partially satisfactory’ with ‘uneven’ delivery and constraints as a result of legacy systems and ‘fragmented data ownership’.
‘It is also unclear whether HMCTS collects the full range of data required to manage backlogs effectively. Access to timely, usable data is a further weakness, with judges and staff often unable to obtain the management information they need.’
The report states that AI could support decision-making and flag relevant case law, precedents and procedural rules to assist judges in ‘routine, low-risk matters, contributing to consistency and efficiency’ though ‘ethical oversight is critical’. However: ‘AI cannot replace judicial discretion or human judgment.'
Recommendations include an individual ‘user champion’ to support continuous improvement, systematic data collection on withdrawn and lapsed cases and research to understand why that happens.
Lord Justice Dingemans, senior president of tribunals and AJC chair, said: ‘The recommendations offer a path forward, ensuring that digital reform continues to strengthen accessibility, fairness and public confidence in our tribunals.’
2 Readers' comments